On 19/03/14 11:00 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
candid feedback on both frameworks.
Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19 2014, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>
>> That begs the question, *why* is that unlikely to change?
>
> Because that project is Swift.
If you look at the Swift code, you'll see that swob is not a replacement for
either Pecan or Falcon
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>> > Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
>> candid feedback on both frameworks.
>>
>> Indeed, that analysis is very muc
On 03/19/2014 01:47 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
> On 03/19/2014 08:20 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> As I understand it, all of the integrated projects have looked at Pecan,
>> and are anticipating the transition. Most have no reason to create a new
>> API version, and therefore build a new API service to a
On Wed, Mar 19 2014, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> That begs the question, *why* is that unlikely to change?
Because that project is Swift.
--
Julien Danjou
// Free Software hacker
// http://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
On Wed, Mar 19 2014, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I’m not sure that “number of dependencies” is a useful metric at all tbh. At
> the
> very least it’s not a very telling metric in the way it was presented in the
> review.
[…]
+1000
Seriously, this in itself just discredits any value in this analysi
> Only one project is using swob, and it is unlikely that will change.
That begs the question, *why* is that unlikely to change? Is it because
there are fundamental needs that are not met by Pecan? If I understand the
original charter for Oslo, it was to consolidate code already in use by
projects
On 03/19/2014 08:20 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
As I understand it, all of the integrated projects have looked at Pecan,
and are anticipating the transition. Most have no reason to create a new
API version, and therefore build a new API service to avoid introducing
incompatibilities by rebuilding th
On 19/03/14 11:20 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed
or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that
divergence are. For instance, and I know this w
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>>
>>> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
>>> candid feedback on both frameworks.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, that analysis is very much appr
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> > Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
> candid feedback on both frameworks.
>
> Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
>
> From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a h
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Kurt Griffiths
wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add more projects
>> that deviation is becoming more costly.
>
> I totally understand the benefits of reducing the variance between
> projects, and to be sure,
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add more projects
>that deviation is becoming more costly.
I totally understand the benefits of reducing the variance between
projects, and to be sure, I am not suggesting we have 10 different
libraries to do X. However
On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his candid
feedback on both frameworks.
Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
fa
Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his candid
> feedback on both frameworks.
Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
>From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
factor that was not included in the report resul
After reviewing the report below, I would recommend that Marconi continue using
Falcon for the v1.1 API and then re-evaluate Pecan for v2.0 or possibly look at
using swob.
I wanted to post my recommendation to the general list, because my request to
continue using Falcon speaks to a broader iss
16 matches
Mail list logo
